This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [libc-alpha] Re: [open-source] Re: Wish for 2002
- From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds at transmeta dot com>
- To: "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" <tb at becket dot net>
- Cc: Roland McGrath <roland at frob dot com>, Kaz Kylheku <kaz at ashi dot footprints dot net>, Russ Allbery <rra at stanford dot edu>, <libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 17:44:38 -0800 (PST)
- Subject: Re: [libc-alpha] Re: [open-source] Re: Wish for 2002
On 9 Jan 2002, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com> writes:
>
> > No, it's not.
> >
> > Technically simple, yes.
> >
> > But from a user perspective it is absolutely _useless_. Because you still
> > cannot depend on the functions being there in glibc, even if _BSD_SOURCE
> > is defined.
>
> Excuse me? If you add the functions, conditional on _BSD_SOURCE, then
> how exactly would programs not be able to depend on them?
Let's see now, the upgrade cycle for glibc right now is on the order of 2
years or so, and we still have stragglers that haven't even upgraded to
glibc _at_all_.
> But that's an argument for *never* adding functions to glibc. After
> all, any really useful function is already going to be carried around
> just in case its absent.
Agreed.
I think glibc is a bloated piece of software already. The more arguments
people can come up with for not making it even bigger and slower, the
better.
So the arguments _for_ adding to it have to be damn strong. I don't think
they have been so far.
Linus